Wow! What a great conversation going on here about the Constitution and
it's "powers" or lack thereof. I am also a student and teacher of the
Constitution and after reading the below discussion, I can see more
clearly the thinking behind the JAIL initiative.

Because most of
the discussion in the area of Constitution and law digress into the words and
definition of words, I'll give a short overview of my general perspective with
general definitions. First, I'll start with the statement that the
Constitution IS the government. This is spelled out in many Supreme Court
cases. Now I'll qualify the statement to say that the Constitution is the
"National" Government, as opposed to the "Federal Government".

What is
the difference? The National government which is the Constitution, is divided
into three SEPARATE AND EQUAL POWERS, was established in 1787 by Article III of
the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court". "The Judicial power of the
United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

In 1889,
two years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress, created an
INFERIOR COURT, by way of the 1789 Judiciary Act, (statute) called the
Department of Justice (all federal district and appellate courts are established
under this act). These courts operate by Federal statutes (Article I) as opposed
to the original National article III courts which operate pursuant to the rules
of the Common Law. This act of Congress created the "Federal judicial code"
commonly known as Title 28... and all the Courts which follow these
statutes.

So the National government is established under the Common Law,
or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or the
Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual
jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered.

I view the judicial
department as a statutory court, departing from the Judicial Power, created to
litigate controversies between statutory persons or corporations. These courts
will IMPOSE its authority upon a non corporate person if not objected to. The
PROBLEM arises when they override the objection. Very few people challenge the
statutory scheme or jurisdiction of the court in the first instant.

I
believe that each case is separate and that a non corporate person must get to
this point, before the court, in order to find out if the Department of Justice
will extend its jurisdiction beyond its limits. If there is no objection to
their imposition of statute upon the common person, they will assume they have
permission to proceed. I believe this is spelled out in the California
Constitution at Article 6 Section 2.

I have not seen or heard of any
other organization that is attempting to bring a bill for judicial
accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for
anything but to draw attention to the problem.Zekezeke@...

Dear Zeke:

Thank you for your feedback on our recent JNJ "Fine
Tuning The Importance of J.A.I.L." May I first comment on your
final statement

that "a bill for judicial
accountability into the Congress, which is desperately needed, if not for
anything but to draw attention to the problem."J.A.I.L. does have
a Federal Bill which is found on our website at www.jail4judges.org which has been
presented to several Senators and Congressmen, including the previous Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde. We personally handed it to
Congressman Ron Paul on one of his California speaking engagements several
years ago. Other JAILers around the country have presented the Federal
J.A.I.L. Bill to their representatives. So, they know about it.

We don't expect the feds will do anything about it
until J.A.I.L. is passed in a sufficient number of states first, indicating
that J.A.I.L. is not just a figment of someone's imagination.

1. Is the Constitution
government?

Saying that the Constitution is government is closer
than saying that We, the People, are the government, the latter of which
I discussed in the last paragraph of Item 2 of "Fine Tuning." One creates
(institutes) the other. The creator is not the same as the product of its
creation. However, there are also inconsistencies in the idea that the
Constitution is government, in that one is the LAW
(and we have to respect it as such, otherwise what can this country stand on?)
and the other is the function instituted by the People
to carry out that LAW.

How many times have you heard a police officer say "I
am the LAW!" That's where we get into trouble-- government, even
constitutional government, is not the LAW.
Government, including the police, is subservient to
the law, and must obey the law. Enforcing the law on
others is part of obeying the law themselves-- the same with executing the law
by government in general. The law is not the same as the delegated power
instituted to enforce/execute it.

2. Are Supreme Court cases lawful
authority?

The Supreme Court is part of the product created by
the People, via the Constitution. Therefore, Supreme Court decisions must be
viewed cautiously by the People. Those decisions are not
the LAW; they must comport with the
LAW. That's a point that will make a lot of people and even the legal
profession dizzy, because they have grown accustomed to courts legislating
from the bench for many years. I have been told that law students are taught
that the "law" is whatever the judge says it is. (I haven't gone to lawschool,
but I've discussed the law with many students and lawyers.) Very little, if
anything, is taught about the Constitution and its true station in life. That
is shown by the way law is practiced, and the way judges rule. (If you
bring up the Constitution once more in MY courtroom, I'll have you held on
contempt! --infamous words.) It's funny how every judge
"owns" the courtroom in which he presides. Even judge Judy says
"This is MY courtroom!" That does a disservice to the
viewing audience, but the media is part of the
problem.

The only legitimate value of court decisions
(referred to as case "law") is for use as guidance to
judges in ruling on future cases of similar circumstances,
citing them as "points and authorities" therefor. I think the term "case law"
confuses people, because it isn't really law in general, but is only the
application of law to that case. And then, to be valid at all, it must have
been decided through due process of law and in accordance with local court
rules (part of due process). So again, it is the
Constitution that is the true authority in all cases,
and judges making decisions at all levels must be held accountable to it by
the People. So when saying "the Supreme Court said
so," be careful!

3. National versus Federal
government

Zeke, this was quite an interesting discussion and I
don't recall having heard this analysis before. I know the term "federal" is
something to be leery of because it is used so loosely. The most striking
example is "Federal Reserve" which is neither federal, nor reserve. When I
hear the term "the feds" I think of the evil, despotic, usurping
powers-that-be. Of course "the feds" don't have a monopoly on that-- it
reaches all levels. I arrive at this conclusion from the intention for
government established by the Declaration of Independence (DOI). "That
to secure these [the People's] rights.
governments are instituted...." Does the de facto government do that
today, or for the last 200+ years? All the fraud, deception, and
trickery in the world doesn't justify this evil. The People have been
fooled, yes-- but that doesn't justify the dishonesty, just because they have
gotten away with it for so long. Evil is evil no matter what, and it only
grows more egregious with the passage of time. THE EVIL IS NO LONGER
SUFFERABLE!

Reading your analysis, Zeke, is like taking a piece
of rope and separating each individual strand and examining each one. You say
the Constitution establishes the National
government under Common Law

[Article III] whereas the Federal government,
including the inferior courts, is established by
statute (legislation by Congress) [Article I]. That
seems to be a logical analysis so far, but confusion sets in when you get into
discussion on the judiciary.

There appears to be a distinction between the
vesting of judicial power in "federal" (as opposed
to state) courts, both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts [Article
III], and the establishing of the inferior courts by
Congress [Article I]. While the judicial power is
vested in all "federal"
courts by the Constitution under Article III, only one
court is established by the Constitution under
Article III, i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, it appears that inferior
courts are vested with judicial power by the Constitution, even though not yet
established and ordained by Congress. That's somewhat confusing to me, but
that's what it appears to be from a reading of the Constitution. I'm not sure
if this part of the discussion is necessary for understanding the importance
of J.A.I.L., but "just for fun" I'll continue.... (Yes, I'm having
fun!)

Here's where I get confused: Zeke, you say that the
National government "was established in 1787 by
Article III of the Constitution, creating the "One Supreme Court".
Continuing your quote: "So the National government is established under the Common Law,
or Judicial power, and the Federal government is established by statute, or
the Legislative power. Both are separate and equal. This is one way the dual
jurisdiction of the Constitution is uncovered." Looks like you're saying that the National government,
established by the Constitution, is limited to the "judicial power" [Article
III] while the Federal government is everything else that is established by
statute [Article I].

My take is that National
government is established by the entire Constitution,
all articles. Federal government is established by
Congress which is part of
the National government. Said another way, National government consists of
all three branches [NOT the People] established by the
Constitution, and Federal government is the product of one
of the branches of National government, i.e., Congress.
Statutory law is subject to the Constitution; therefore, according to
this analysis, Federal government (statutory) is subject to National
government (constitutional). I like that analogy. Too much power has been
assumed by "Federal" government.

I am reminded of the following
statement in the DOI: "He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended
legislation." The operation ofFederal government has certainly conjured up a
"jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" and our judiciary (the
oligarchy of kings) has certainly "given its assent to [Congress'] acts of
pretended legislation."

4. Does government
have the right to "assume" authority?

Zeke, you said "If there is no objection to
their [the courts] imposition of statute upon the
common person, they will assume they have permission to proceed." You are referring to the courts here, but this applies to
government generally. This is the problem that we, the People, are facing:
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE COURTS, ASSUMING "PERMISSION
TO PROCEED" when the "common person" (individual) fails to object. [I recall
one time when I was appearing as plaintiff in court, the judge asked
opposing counsel what my case was all about rather
than reading the paperwork before him or asking me. Needless to say, opposing
counsel (County Counsel who is also counsel to the judge sitting at the bench)
was really messing up the facts, and I would orally object to each false
statement. Finally the judge said to me in a stern voice "If you
interrupt one more time, you will be held in contempt." Yet if I didn't
object, it would be determined that I "accepted" what was being falsely stated
on the record. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't! By the way,
that judge was promoted to the L.A. Court of Appeals the following month. He
was a "good" tyrant! That he was!]

"Assuming" authority is nothing less than usurpation
of power! Remember-- government (especially the courts) is to protect our
rights, not "assume" permission to proceed when rights are being compromised
and even destroyed. Oh-- you didn't OBJECT! Well, you see what happens
when you DO object! There's such a thing as "Due process of
law" which prevents this misunderstanding, and is described as
"protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." (Yes,
by case law-- but if it's constitutional, it's valid. See Daniels v.
Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331). The courts ignore it anyway! They
would rather "assume permission to proceed" against you --actually whether you
object or not.

We really appreciate the feedback. It allows us to
refine matters even more and to learn from it. I've learned a lot, especially
in the last month or so when we've received such interesting discussions
regarding the basis of J.A.I.L. --namely the Declaration and the Constitution
upon which it is based. Thank you for reading our material, even if it
is lengthy at times. It's worth it.